Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2008 9:45:00 GMT -5
In all the ridiculous sports we've gone over, somehow we've neglected to ridicule rythmic gymnastics, AKA Twirling, which is every bit as stupid as synchronized swimming and diving. I assume you mean synchronized diving? I actually find regular diving a tiny bit compelling, especially with the constant threat of a diver smashing his/her head on a block of cement or a diving board. It is fantastically ridiculous they keep some of the sports they keep while they eliminate some of the sports they eliminate. As someone pointed out, what other explanation can there be other than the US would clean house (or at least add significantly to their medal count) so get rid of it?
|
|
|
Post by atlasfrysmith on Aug 12, 2008 9:46:59 GMT -5
Could the reason the weight classes seem so odd to us have something to do with the fact that our country is frighteningly obese? On another note, you'll be pleased to know that the same great minds who brought you rhythmic gymnastics and speedwalking have also decided that not only should baseball be eliminated after this year, it should be over as quickly as possible: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/07/AR2008080703041.html
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 12, 2008 10:20:55 GMT -5
As absurd and totally uninteresting as I find speedwalking, at least it does have some precedent. It is basically the human equivalent of the harness racing or the "trotters" as they are known in the equestrian field. In harness racing, the horse's sides must move together. In other words, both left legs must move in unison as do the right. Whereas when running the front legs stay together as do the hindlegs. Not that this gives the "sport" any more credibility, but at least it wasn't just made up out of thin air ... a la rythmic gymnastics or trampoline.
Note to atlas: not everyone can carry the whole world on their back. Don't be throwing stones at us just because we enjoy good food and beverages a little more than is probably best.
And no, that isn't the reason that the weight classes are so odd. There are some 300 pound guys that are in amazingly good shape. Body builders, wrestlers (not sumo), some football players and competitors in the world's strongest man are some examples. The fact that these guys would be in the same weight class as a 220 pounder, while there are seemingly a dozen different weight classes for those under 170 pounds is somewhat perplexing.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 12, 2008 10:31:31 GMT -5
The gymnastics was a lot of fun to watch but frustrating too. 1) It was good to see us medal despite losing our top two gymnasts 2) it was frusterating because we could've had silver if we didn't suck so much at the pomel horse. 3) it was also frustrating because the US seemed to consistently have the lowest difficulty in their attempts that put us at a distinct disadvantage. I'm assuming this was due to point 1 but still we had no shot at the gold because all our difficulty values were like 6 so even when we executed at above a 9 quality the best we could get was in the 15's while the chinese would screw up more but have a difficulty of 7 or 8 so had more room for error. seems like our strategy failed us. It seems like a high risk high reward routine would've given us a better shot. Perhaps there was no way these replacements could pull off higher valued stunts but the stuff we did do looked pretty damn impressive yet had lower worth than the stunts other teams were doing.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 12, 2008 11:17:50 GMT -5
Could the reason the weight classes seem so odd to us have something to do with the fact that our country is frighteningly obese? On another note, you'll be pleased to know that the same great minds who brought you rhythmic gymnastics and speedwalking have also decided that not only should baseball be eliminated after this year, it should be over as quickly as possible: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/07/AR2008080703041.htmlI know a lot of people want to roll with this "America is just too fat for the weight classes" angle but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Weightlifitng requires a lot of muscle, which is heavier than fat. So a world class 130 pound weightlifter isn't just "not obese"- he is extremely short because he actually would only weigh 110 pounds if he wasn't lifting weights 4 hours a day. Often because he was lifting at age 9 because in Azerbaijan, that's your ticket out. Anyway you slice it, the weight classes mean the whole sport is geared toward people who are quite short. 7 or 8 of 10 classes involve people who by any measure are shorter than average- which is why they generally come from countries that are poor and don't have good nutrition. Yeah, Americans are too fat, me among them. But that does not mean there should be 7 or 8 catagories of strength events geared towards people that are not just NOT FAT, but are very short. This has a Special Olympics "everyone gets a hug" ring too it, does it not? It's patronizing to shorter people that we feel we need to give them 7 catagories of lifting medals when average to tall people make do with 2-3 tops, especially given that if it were like speed events, all we would care about is the strongest overall period. Can't they just have one or two catagories? Can't we re-calibrate the classes to reflect modern height and weight norms all over the world? You are kidding yourself if you think the whole world is just the same height and weight as 100 years ago basically except for fatso USA. Do you really think they need 7? Are we pretending that people have just got a lot fatter and only in the USA but not also taller and stonger as the world has developed in the last century and fewer people have been forced to live on starvation diets? Do you not really think the world mean height and weight has skyrocketed in the last even 50 years? But ultimately tell me this. Why not weight catagories for discuss or long jump or 100M sprint? Nobody can answer this. Remember as always that weight clasffifications are a form of height classification at the same time. Nobody who is short is ever winning the long jump. Nobody who is slight of frame is ever winning the shot put. Why is that OK but not in weightlifting- where everyone is a winner?
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Aug 12, 2008 12:05:38 GMT -5
The gymnastics was a lot of fun to watch but frustrating too. 1) It was good to see us medal despite losing our top two gymnasts 2) it was frusterating because we could've had silver if we didn't suck so much at the pomel horse. 3) it was also frustrating because the US seemed to consistently have the lowest difficulty in their attempts that put us at a distinct disadvantage. I'm assuming this was due to point 1 but still we had no shot at the gold because all our difficulty values were like 6 so even when we executed at above a 9 quality the best we could get was in the 15's while the chinese would screw up more but have a difficulty of 7 or 8 so had more room for error. seems like our strategy failed us. It seems like a high risk high reward routine would've given us a better shot. Perhaps there was no way these replacements could pull off higher valued stunts but the stuff we did do looked pretty damn impressive yet had lower worth than the stunts other teams were doing. I noticed the same thing, HSB. Our high bar routines looked AWESOME, but the Chinese seemed to score just as well without the dramatic looking releases. And on most of the apparatuses, we were sticking landings, hitting all the moves, etc...but the difficulty points just weren't there. The vault especially is where I noticed such a huge differential. Pommel horse was a mess unto itself, but the Russian guy who went last was incredible. I saw his routine in the qualifiers too, and he's exciting enough on that damn thing to get me standing and yelling.
|
|
PDRHoya99
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 766
|
Post by PDRHoya99 on Aug 12, 2008 12:12:58 GMT -5
I know a lot of people want to roll with this "America is just too fat for the weight classes" angle but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Weightlifitng requires a lot of muscle, which is heavier than fat. So a world class 130 pound weightlifter isn't just "not obese"- he is extremely short because he actually would only weigh 110 pounds if he wasn't lifting weights 4 hours a day. Often because he was lifting at age 9 because in Azerbaijan, that's your ticket out. Anyway you slice it, the weight classes mean the whole sport is geared toward people who are quite short. 7 or 8 of 10 classes involve people who by any measure are shorter than average- which is why they generally come from countries that are poor and don't have good nutrition... Randy Newman everybody! Actually I do agree with you on the subject of weightclasses for weightlifting, just not on the subject that 150lbs is somehow an odd weight for an athlete. Look at the people participating in almost all of the endurance events: Alan Webb, Middle Distance Runner, 5'9" 145lbs Ryan Hall, Marathon, 5'11" 140lbs Levi Leipheimer, Road Cycling, 5'7" 140lbs Christian Vande Velde, 5'11" 150lbs These guys are all plenty muscular, however I agree, when the sport is weightlifting, you'd think the weight classes would be more synced up with the competitors (ie the classes would adjust to ensure that an equal number of worldwide participants would be represented by each weight class). However, maybe it's good the we level the playing field for the short people somewhere. Good luck finding a swimmer that's under 6'2" that is winning anything at these games.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 12, 2008 12:54:03 GMT -5
"just not on the subject that 150lbs is somehow an odd weight for an athlete."
PDR I have NEVER said that. Please re-read. I think that it is absurd that 140 pounds is right smack in the MIDDLE of the weight classes for boxing- NOT that 140 pound people shouldn't be boxing. Seems to me that weight class should be the 2nd or so class, not the 6th class into the 11. But there should be as many classes over 200 pounds as there are under 200 pounds frankly- or something CLOSE to that. There is at this time no longer a real need for A WHOPPING 7 weight classes that are below 170 pounds. The current mean weight seems to be about 140 pounds according to this ancient systerm. That means practically speaking it encourages people around 5 feet tall and very much discourages those that are 6 feet tall and higher who have FAR more competition for one of their reasonable weight classes. It needs to be higher. THAT DOESN'T MEAN 130 pounders won't be able to box, it just means they will have to fit into one of a sane number of weight classes, not one on an insane number of sub-200 weight classes. That way boxing might let in some of the tall people who cannot compete in the sport because their muscle mass is way out of whack to their weight because so many classes are so damn light.
I don't know how many times I have to say this, for combat sports of course you need weight classes. Weightlifting is different. It's analogous to high jumping or shot put or swimming- there is an objective criteria for how well someone does and as we do not have different classes for sports with objective numbers-based results in those sports I don't see the need for it in weightlifting. Literally I don't see ANY DIFFERENCE at all betweent he way discuss and weightlifting should be broken down. Just give me the highest number for each. Not 11 sets of higher numbers if you let the people not well disposed to the sport in the door too.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,432
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Aug 12, 2008 15:07:37 GMT -5
Speedwalking???!! Come on, guys, it is RACEWALKING. After 30 years of distance running, I went over to the dark side, and have been racewalking for about six or seven years. Great workout without the pounding of running, which was affecting my knees, hamstrings, feet, etc. You can do the same workouts - speed, intervals, distance - but at a slower pace. You also get your upper body involved more than running. I would still run and compete at that, if I could, and if it was still enjoyable, but I can't and it isn't. Racewalking satisfies my still competitive urges. As one who has participated in this sport, I know what good athletes the top guys (and women) are and how hard they train. It is a personal delight that this is still an Olympic sport. Incidentally, the world record in the 10K in racewalking was just set at about 37:58. Most recreational runners cannot do that for a run.
|
|
hoyaboy1
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,346
|
Post by hoyaboy1 on Aug 12, 2008 16:15:26 GMT -5
bin, some things to consider:
1 -Percentage-wise, weight differences are larger at the lower weights.
2 - There is much more talent at every weight class up to 175 than there is at heavyweight - if you divided up the heavies more it would be a disaster. The 2 worst weight classes in boxing are cruiserweight and heavyweight. It simply isn't true that there is more competition at the higher weights.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 12, 2008 16:38:57 GMT -5
"just not on the subject that 150lbs is somehow an odd weight for an athlete." . I think that it is absurd that 140 pounds is right smack in the MIDDLE of the weight classes for boxing- NOT that 140 pound people shouldn't be boxing. Seems to me that weight class should be the 2nd or so class, not the 6th class into the 11. But there should be as many classes over 200 pounds as there are under 200 pounds frankly- or something CLOSE to that. There is at this time no longer a real need for A WHOPPING 7 weight classes that are below 170 pounds. The current mean weight seems to be about 140 pounds according to this ancient systerm. That means practically speaking it encourages people around 5 feet tall and very much discourages those that are 6 feet tall and higher who have FAR more competition for one of their reasonable weight classes. It needs to be higher. THAT DOESN'T MEAN 130 pounders won't be able to box, it just means they will have to fit into one of a sane number of weight classes, not one on an insane number of sub-200 weight classes. That way boxing might let in some of the tall people who cannot compete in the sport because their muscle mass is way out of whack to their weight because so many classes are so damn light. Weight Classes Light flyweight (106 pounds) Flyweight (112 pounds) Bantamweight (119 pounds) Featherweight (125 pounds) Lightweight (132 pounds) Light welterweight (141 pounds) Welterweight (152 pounds) Middleweight (165 pounds) Light heavyweight (178 pounds) Heavyweight (201 pounds) Super heavyweight (+201 pounds).
I've had the opportunity to work with the Golden Gloves organization over the years -- quite a remarkable group of volunteers and a great history -- so I have a different perspective on the issue of weight classes. One reason for the number of weight categories, particularly at the under 170 Lb? The proportional difference in weights at those levels is much greater on a pound-per-pound basis than the bigger guys. To clarify, a 6 Lb difference for guys who are 120 Lbs is a MUCH greater difference than for guys who are 200 Lbs. The first 5 weight classes are (essentially) separated by 6 Lbs. If you attend a GG event, or USA boxing you will see that makes quite a significant difference at those levels. The next weight classes go up by larger amounts as the guys get bigger: 9 Lbs 11 Lbs 13 Lbs 13 Lbs 23 Lbs Unlimited Because the smaller weight variances at lower weight levels make a bigger difference than the same variances would at higher levels, there are more weight categories at the lower levels. The bigger the boxers get, the less difference a smaller weight difference would make... so the heavier categories are separated by larger amounts. Secondly, these weight classes are international. If you've traveled around say Asia, for example, there are a great many people of lower weights. Third, most US boxers are in the 17-23 age range. Guys of that age who work out constantly and are in great shape weigh a lot less than the average American teen who fills up on Big Macs and Wings, or plays football or basketball. Fourth, most of the GG organizations around the USA have no problem filling all the weight categories...except for the lowest -- Light flyweight. Fighters in that category tend to be Hispanic. Is it really necessary to add higher levels categories? well, 201 is a heavyweight. A well-trained, highly fit 201 Lb boxer is pretty damn imposing. Above that the level is "unlimited". Perhaps you think there needs to be more categories than that above 201? Based on the boxers competing at those levels, I didn't see a justification for that. The advantage that a 240 Lb boxer might have over a 220 Lb guy is not that great. And there are not a lot of fit guys that size outside of the NFL. As for the comment about height... I don't get that point. People of all heights can compete. I don't see how adding weight classes would help them. I hope this additional perspective is useful to understanding why the weight categories are as they are, and they actually make quite a lot of sense.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 12, 2008 16:47:05 GMT -5
Sir, you make good points. You are basically saying that you can't spread out the weight classes "evenly" because it would be unfair. For argument sake, suppose we divided the categories evenly by 15 pound increments. It might look something like this:
<105 <120 <135 <150 <165 <180 <195 <210 unlimited
That is nine weight classes that are "fair" ... at least on paper, but your point is that someone at the bottom of a lower weight class is at too much of a disadvantage against someone near the top of his own weight class ... like 106 pounder and 119 pounder correct?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Aug 12, 2008 16:50:32 GMT -5
Two pretty good points hoyaboy1. Its certainly true that the smaller guys have been better boxers for more about 20 years now. But you have chicken and egg problem there, it may be that the heavy divisions are lopsided. You have heavies who are 40 ounds apart fighting each other and it isn't really boxing so much as punching. I think you could argue that if you recalibrated the weights up 20 pounds, you would re-introduce skill into the only division in the sport that can bring boxing back to glory....
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 12, 2008 17:23:04 GMT -5
Sir, you make good points. You are basically saying that you can't spread out the weight classes "evenly" because it would be unfair. For argument sake, suppose we divided the categories evenly by 15 pound increments. It might look something like this: <105 <120 <135 <150 <165 <180 <195 <210 unlimited That is nine weight classes that are "fair" ... at least on paper, but your point is that someone at the bottom of a lower weight class is at too much of a disadvantage against someone near the top of his own weight class ... like 106 pounder and 119 pounder correct? The point is that the a 15 lb difference at 105 to 120, or 120 to 135 is relatively much greater than the difference between 180 and 195. Add to that, there are 11 weight classes now, not the 9 you mentioned. Finally, these weight categories have stood the test of time around the world -- and including the USA in recent decades. It might be useful to consider why this has been the case, and maybe talk to people who are actually involved in these sports before criticizing them too severely.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 12, 2008 17:28:17 GMT -5
Two pretty good points hoyaboy1. Its certainly true that the smaller guys have been better boxers for more about 20 years now. But you have chicken and egg problem there, it may be that the heavy divisions are lopsided. You have heavies who are 40 ounds apart fighting each other and it isn't really boxing so much as punching. I think you could argue that if you recalibrated the weights up 20 pounds, you would re-introduce skill into the only division in the sport that can bring boxing back to glory.... I think the bigger problem with heavyweight boxing is professional football. Most great heavyweights play linebacker these days.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 12, 2008 17:33:34 GMT -5
Two pretty good points hoyaboy1. Its certainly true that the smaller guys have been better boxers for more about 20 years now. But you have chicken and egg problem there, it may be that the heavy divisions are lopsided. You have heavies who are 40 ounds apart fighting each other and it isn't really boxing so much as punching. I think you could argue that if you recalibrated the weights up 20 pounds, you would re-introduce skill into the only division in the sport that can bring boxing back to glory.... Not sure I follow that logic. There is nothing to stop bigger guys from boxing now. And the bigger guys don't usually have the advantage. That is, a 260 lb guy isn't necessarily going to be favored over a 240, or 220 Lb guy. How would establishing more categories at higher levels result in greater skill? If a really big guy wants to develop his skills, he can already do so.
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Aug 12, 2008 19:07:23 GMT -5
As for all the weight classes, it's no sillier than swimming. Let's award medals for 4 different ways to move through the water at all different distances. It's the equivalent of having a medal for hopping on one foot or crawling or running backwards in 100, 200 and 400 meter distances. I guess the walking medals are somewhat like that, but those are equally ridiculous. Seriously? How is it any different then having track races of 100/200/400 meters plus hurdles and steeplechase, or both discus and shot put, or the fact that skiing has downhill, super G, and slalom, or both 2 and 4 man bobsled, luge, and skeleton. The reality is that all sports have different variations that seem "silly" to people who have put no effort into understanding the sport. The reality is that to the people who understand those supports I bet each discipline is very different. I have a reasonable understanding of the swimming cause I have a younger brother who was a top swimmer. The fact that Michael Phelps is incredible at so many different events is not an indication that the events are all so similar that having multiple ones is pointless. Each stroke uses different muscles in different ways. The non-freestyle events only have two distances (the sprint 100 and the distance 200). The freestyle events have the 50, 100, 200, 400, 1500/800 to cover a splash and dash sprint, a long sprint, a short middle distance race, a distance race, and a long distance race. People may ask why to have the different strokes and a spread over distances, and the answer is probably the same reason that a basketball hoop is 10 feet high or that you have to throw and catch in water polo with only one hand: because those are the rules the game is played by, and racing is just another game (probably one of the oldest).
|
|
PDRHoya99
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 766
|
Post by PDRHoya99 on Aug 12, 2008 19:29:42 GMT -5
Seriously? How is it any different then having track races of 100/200/400 meters plus hurdles and steeplechase, or both discus and shot put, or the fact that skiing has downhill, super G, and slalom, or both 2 and 4 man bobsled, luge, and skeleton. The reality is that all sports have different variations that seem "silly" to people who have put no effort into understanding the sport. The reality is that to the people who understand those supports I bet each discipline is very different. I have a reasonable understanding of the swimming cause I have a younger brother who was a top swimmer. The fact that Michael Phelps is incredible at so many different events is not an indication that the events are all so similar that having multiple ones is pointless. Each stroke uses different muscles in different ways. The non-freestyle events only have two distances (the sprint 100 and the distance 200). The freestyle events have the 50, 100, 200, 400, 1500/800 to cover a splash and dash sprint, a long sprint, a short middle distance race, a distance race, and a long distance race. People may ask why to have the different strokes and a spread over distances, and the answer is probably the same reason that a basketball hoop is 10 feet high or that you have to throw and catch in water polo with only one hand: because those are the rules the game is played by, and racing is just another game (probably one of the oldest). Swimming races are about how can move from one end of the pool to the other quicker. Swimming different strokes, while certainly valid as contests, always seemed a little odd to me because there were faster ways to accomplish the goal of getting to the other end of the pool. When Dick Fosbury determined a new way of getting over the bar in highjump they didn't suddenly create two events for the two different methods of highjumping, the more efficient method took over. I agree, they are all valid disciplines, and it is impressive when one swimmer can dominate in multiple events, but my only point was it seemed odd that the sport developed that way. Reading this wikipedia article tends to confirm that fact -- in short, breastroke exists because the British thought it was too primitive to swim the front crawl like Native Americans, butterfly exists because it was an improvement in the speed of breastroke, and backstroke seems to have just popped up on it's own at the 1900 Paris olympics (where they also had an obstacle swimming course).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2008 8:03:15 GMT -5
U.S. Men's Soccer: making America proud since... um... yeah.
|
|
kghoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,993
|
Post by kghoya on Aug 13, 2008 9:19:31 GMT -5
U.S. Men's Soccer: making America proud since... um... yeah. hey at least they made it this time both us soccer and us baseball were absent from the games in athens
|
|